Use the comments as an open thread on any of these topics. If you feel that I’ve neglected a link, news, commentary, humor or Rule Fivage, send a link to the contact email on the sidebar. (All spambots must die!)

I’ve spent the better part of twenty-four hours reading
endless commentary from thinking, normally-coherent rightists who are trying to convince me, if
not themselves, that John Roberts’ fundamental transformation of judicial review is actually a long-term win for conservatives and originalists. And even
with my initial fiery emotions tempered a bit (although my outrage has continued to blossom), I just don’t get it.

I truly don’t.

I haven’t stopped shaking my head since
10:15 yesterday morning when the rulings came down.

From the pens and tongues of people I honestly respect, from George Will
to Charles Krauthammer, I’m being told I need to step back, relax and try to see the silver linings in all of this madness - that the Supreme Court’s decision to
uphold the ObamaCare individual mandate as a tax, rather than a matter of
commerce, is an historical victory – that yesterday’s debacle of a decision
will limit future attempts to use the Constitution’s commerce clause as a
vehicle for government expansion.

On that point, I concede they’re almost certainly correct.

But that’s where the whole matter should have ended – with five
Supreme Court justices suitably upending any federal attempts at imposing a mandate that would compel us under penalty of law to have to purchase
anything. At that point, the men in black robes should have closed up shop, congratulated
each other for defending the Constitution and individual liberty and gone home
to watch reruns of Mad Men.

But they didn’t.

So, while the Constitution's commerce clause became that much more
difficult for future legislators to use as a mechanism for government growth (we
hope), it also became that much easier to levy taxes on both behavior and non-behavior.
Indeed, Chief Justice John Roberts - the swing vote - has set a new judicial standard. The federal government can now say we must purchase whatever it deems necessary, so long as the
penalty for not doing so is called a "tax." The word "commerce" never needs to come into play. And while it's true that the feds have always been able to tax its citizens, no one could have imagined that this flimsiest of justifications would keep the individual mandate living and breathing - for now and for the future.

As a consequence, the proverbial flood gates are now wide open – and just as we’ve
seen here in that bastion of personal liberty, New York City (think cooking oil, cigarettes, 16-ounce cups of soda,
etc), once the government reaches in and knocks over one domino, it will not
stop until they're all toppled under the guise of doing whats best for us (at the expense of liberty).

Government never knows when to stop.

What that means is that those people who can afford to purchase health insurance, but choose not to, will be taxed. It also means that young people,
say in their early twenties, who are healthy and choose not to be insured (as I
did when I was that age), will also be taxed. The latter group, incidentally,
will be facing increasing fines each year until it becomes less expensive for
them to actually purchase the mandatory insurance, at which time the open arms
of the government will be there waiting to take care of them.

Clever. yes?

And so it was that the Chief Justice of the United States
tore a page from the 2012 edition of the “Activist Judges Handbook” and not
only overstepped his bounds, but set a new kind of puzzling precedent.

A scary one.

John Roberts, in his attempts to keep the court from “legislating
from the bench,” did precisely that. He quite literally rewrote the law,
miraculously preserving the federal mandate for health insurance by calling it
a “tax” – even though no such language existed anywhere in the bill’s 2000-plus
pages, nor was it sold that way by any breathing Democrat. Even Ted Kennedy, before he relocated to the Mary Jo Kopechne Hall of Ultimate Justice, never argued for this legislative depravity as a tax. It would have unquestionably died a quick death had it been presented
that way.

(Radio talk-show host Mark Levin points out that in the early days of the ObamaCare debate, there were Dems who actually talked about this legislation being similar to the social security tax. Levin notes, however, that it wasn't too long before they completely backed away from using the "t" word. His Landmark Legal Foundation actually filed briefs with the Supreme Court explaining in detail why ObamaCare was categorically not a tax).

What is most infuriating about all of this is that we
(by “we” I mean those of us who revere and respect the Constitution) had this
thing defeated. This thing was a dead duck. Justice Anthony Kennedy was with us all the way.

How often does that happen?

It turns my stomach
thinking about how close we were to killing this disaster.

Justice Anthony Kennedy

We actually had Kennedy.

He was one of the four dissenting justices who correctly
asserted that the entire ObamaCare bill was unconstitutional.

It was in the
bag.

Even John Roberts agreed that as a matter of justifying the mandate under the commerce clause, ObamaCare didn’t
cut the constitutional mustard.

But then Roberts decided that he’d try his hand at writing
law instead of interpreting it. From out
of thin air, it occurred to him that the bill’s individual mandate also functioned as a tax – that somehow, the high court was magically obliged
to treat it as a tax, although it wasn’t meant as one. All the lefty big guns –
Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, et al – never used the word tax in selling this garbage
to the American people. The President himself went as far as rejecting the
notion on numerous occasions. So, rather than use the Constitution itself in
conjunction with the actual text contained in the ObamaCare bill to correctly and
completely put the kibosh on this unprecedented overreach of government, Roberts
constructed, out of whole cloth, a way to keep the bill alive. He made the
rationale used in passing “Roe vs Wade” look like a civil traffic dispute. He went
beyond checking the emanations and penumbras cited by the Warren Court way back when for
justifications. He literally stuck his hand into a black judicial void and yanked out
the word “tax.”

It was as if it was the Chief Justice’s mission to save this
wretched piece of legislation any way he could.

The fact that no one along the way – whether it be in state
court, circuit court, whatever – ever viewed the ObamaCare
penalty as a tax was irrelevant to Chief Justice Roberts. Thus, the constitutionality of the individual mandate as a "tax" is all his doing, effectively rendering him the author of the bill.

But the fact remains that ObamaCare was not passed as a
tax. It would never have become law as a tax.

No matter how you slice it, ObamaCare is a deception of the highest order, not to mention a tax
increase the likes of which we’ve never seen before.

Victor Davis
Hanson writes that “rationalizing
defeats is no way to learn from them.”

He’s right.

Andrew McCarthy writes: “ …even if the Court is correct that, under its jurisprudence,
the mandate that undergirds Obamacare can be sustained as a tax, it is surely
intolerable for the Supreme Court to aid and abet Congress and the president in
the commission of a massive fraud: upholding as a tax something they swore up
and down was not a tax — allowing them to enact as a tax something that would
never have passed if honestly presented as a tax, allowing them to escape
accountability for passing a massive tax increase."

He’s right.

Bill Bennet, on his talk show this morning, pointed out that if
Barack Obama is re-elected and appoints liberal justices to the court, the
entire commerce clause "victory" means absolutely nothing.

He, too, is right.

As expected, the spiking of the White House football was swift .... and flat out nonsensical. Yesterday, the President said: “In doing so, [The Supreme Court] reaffirmed a fundamental principle that
here in America – in the wealthiest nation on Earth – no illness or accident
should lead to any family’s financial ruin.”

What on God's green earth is he
talking about?

Where exactly is
this fundamental principal “affirmed?” In what document? As part of what
doctrine? Taking a page from the “Roberts
Handbook of Incoherent Jurisprudence Rationalization,” the President has literally made
this up ... and there isn't a mainstream media news person who will call him on it.

In his opinion, Justice
Roberts wrote: “It is not our
job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

That is true, of course, but it is his job to defend the Constitutions from obvious violations, just as
he and four other justices did in shooting down the mandate that compels the
people of the United States to engage in commerce under the Constitution's commerce clause.

It should also be noted, as a matter of Constitutional
rights, that the law as it stands now would effectively drown religious institutions – like Catholic
or Jewish schools as well as affiliated hospitals - with fines (I should say, taxes) unless
they relent to offer insurance and services that violate the teachings and doctrines
of their particular faiths.

That's not going to go over too well.

First Amendment anyone?

Incidentally, I’m curious…. What kind of “tax” is the
ObamaCare bill exactly? As explained by Mark Levin on his radio program
yesterday, this is a very important and relevant question in justifying the bill's constitutionality. Is it a direct tax,
as expressed in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of The
Constitution? Is it an income tax, as expressed in the 16th Amendment?
Is it an excise tax?

As Levin explains: “It’s not a direct - or capitation - tax. It’s not an excise tax. It’s not an income tax. And you know what John
Roberts says in response to all that? ‘Oh, let’s stop fiddling around with
labels.’ Excuse me? It’s not fiddling around with labels. We’ve got all kinds
of case law on how crucial it is.”

But it gets even more convoluted.

There is a statute called the Tax Anti-Injunction
Act. Enacted in 1867, it essentially keeps people from being able to take the federal
government to court “for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any
tax.” In other words, we cannot sue the feds simply because we
don’t wish to pay taxes. Chief Justice Roberts cited this statute in his opinion
yesterday, saying that because the writers of the ObamaCare bill did not call the
individual mandate a "tax" (rather a “penalty”), the Tax Anti-Injunction Act is
not applicable here, and thus it will not be considered a tax in this context.

Follow me here ..... Chief Justice Roberts initially wrote that the “penalty” for not having health insurance is
not a “tax.” It’s merely a good old-fashioned penalty.

Roberts writes: “The Affordable Care Act does not require that the penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not apply to this suit, and we may proceed to the merits.”

So, it's not a tax.

So far so good?

Got that?

It’s not a tax.

That is, until we get a little further in his opinion.

That’s when it suddenly becomes a tax.

He writes: “It is of course true that the Act describes the payment as a
‘penalty,’ not a ‘tax. But while that label is fatal to the application of the
Anti-Injunction Act, it does not determine whether the payment may be viewed as
an exercise of Congress’s taxing power.

“While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the
purchase of health insurance, it need not be read to declare that failing to do
so is unlawful,. neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal
consequences to not buying health insur­ance, beyond requiring a payment to the
IRS.”

Did I read that correctly?

"...neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insur­ance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS.”

Thursday, June 28, 2012

U S Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress on two separate votes, one civil and one criminal. I heard Mr. Holder give a statement in his own defense, where he tried lamely to state that Fast and Furious was a continuation of a Bush era program. Unfortunately for Holder and other liars in this administration, operation Wide Receiver, which was started under the Bush administration, with the knowledge and cooperation of the Mexican government, was able to actually track a much smaller number of guns. The program was shut down two years prior to the Obama administration's Fast and Furious, because of the difficulty in keeping track of the weapons.

In addition, the Obama administration did not inform the Mexican government of the program, nor were any arrests made, as was the case under Wide Receiver.

Fast and Furious is a wholly owned subsidiary of the oxymoronically named "Obama Justice Department", which sent false testimony to Congress denying that the program even existed.

Tell that to Border Patrol agent Brian Terry and some 200-300 dead Mexican citizens killed with weapons obtained illegally and "walked" across the border, aided and abetted by the Obama DOJ.

"...a sense of humor is merely the ability to see connections between things we haven’t noticed before (while laughter is what we do when we realize that those connections should have been obvious all along)."

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as demolition sergeant serving with the 21st Marines, 3d Marine Division, in action against enemy Japanese forces on Iwo Jima, Volcano Islands, 23 February 1945. Quick to volunteer his services when our tanks were maneuvering vainly to open a lane for the infantry through the network of reinforced concrete pillboxes, buried mines, and black volcanic sands, Cpl. Williams daringly went forward alone to attempt the reduction of devastating machinegun fire from the unyielding positions. Covered only by 4 riflemen, he fought desperately for 4 hours under terrific enemy small-arms fire and repeatedly returned to his own lines to prepare demolition charges and obtain serviced flamethrowers, struggling back, frequently to the rear of hostile emplacements, to wipe out 1 position after another. On 1 occasion, he daringly mounted a pillbox to insert the nozzle of his flamethrower through the air vent, killing the occupants and silencing the gun; on another he grimly charged enemy riflemen who attempted to stop him with bayonets and destroyed them with a burst of flame from his weapon. His unyielding determination and extraordinary heroism in the face of ruthless enemy resistance were directly instrumental in neutralizing one of the most fanatically defended Japanese strong points encountered by his regiment and aided vitally in enabling his company to reach its objective. Cpl. Williams' aggressive fighting spirit and valiant devotion to duty throughout this fiercely contested action sustain and enhance the highest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service.

There are fewer than a hundred living MoH recipients today. Their names and their stories should not be forgotten. My mission is to honor one of those heroes here each week, and salute them for their courage and sacrifice. In the words of John Fitzgerald Kennedy:

“A nation reveals itself not only by the men it produces, but also by the men it honors; the men it remembers.”

For the record, I live in Stockton, California. Yes, that Stockton, California! The largest US city ever to declare bankruptcy. After a couple of days of waving our giant foam fingers and shouting, "We're number one!", the time has come for a somewhat harder look at what's going on.

Last night, the news coverage was filled with accounts of many of the people who are going to be hurt by the city's plight. Many retirees showed up at City Hall, fearful of what was going to happen to them, on a fixed income, if their benefits were reduced and their health care costs were to increase.

Rather than dissect, at the moment, how the city and its retirees got into this mess, or how they're going to get out of it, and at what cost, I see the City of Stockton's bankruptcy as an example of what happens when the resources are inadequate for the demand, and unfortunately, a microcosm for what looms large for both the state of California and the nation as a whole.

But first, a little trip down Memory Lane. Anyone here remember "Situational ethics"? Situational ethics was a supposedly Christian theory put forth in the 1960s by an Episcopal priest Joseph Fletcher. As I recall, it started gaining favor in school curricula in the 1980's.

Situational ethics taught that what might be unethical in one situation might be perfectly acceptable, should the "situation" call for it. It is a bad thing to tell a lie, but if you were in Germany in the 1940's and Anne Frank was hiding in your attic, it was permissible to lie to the Nazis if they asked you if you were hiding any Jews. So far, so good.

And then, there was the infamous lifeboat scenario: There are fifteen of you in a lifeboat with only enough food and water for twelve. If you all stay on the boat, you are all going to die. Therefore, in this situation, wouldn't it be better to throw three people overboard so that twelve might live?

They made it easy for you, too. There was usually a rabbi or a priest on board, in his seventies or eighties, and, after all, he'd lived a good long life. Better to throw him overboard than your freckle faced fifteen year old niece, right? (The holy man always has to go first, otherwise, he might introduce some morality into your situational situation and muck up everything!*) There'd usually be at least one more elderly person in the boat, because euthanizing the elderly is not something we can teach our children soon enough! So, Granny goes over the side. In some cases, there might have been a handicapped person, or one with Downs syndrome, and since their quality of life isn't all that great, and who knows how long someone with Downs syndrome might live anyway, into the water with them, too.

At this point, having killed the elderly, the infirm and the retarded to save your own skin, may I point out the irony in a comparison between you and the Nazis you were lying to in the previous example? Perhaps here we could contrast, too, those four chaplains on the troop ship USAT Dorchester in 1943, who gave up their own life jackets when there weren't enough to go around. It is quite a different thing to volunteer to give up one's own life as opposed to having some committee decide it for you.

In bankruptcy, there isn't enough money, simply not enough resources to pay all the bills and keep all your promises. In the lifeboat, there aren't enough resources to keep everybody alive, so Father Flanagan and Granny go in the drink. In the proposed government takeover of the healthcare system, which hopefully will have a stake driven through its heart tomorrow, you cannot add millions of people to a shrinking system in a bankrupt country, full of bankrupt states, cites and towns, and expect that there will be enough resources for everyone.

Granny will have to go. Maybe she'll get a pill instead of an operation, like Obama suggested, but rationing would become a way of life in healthcare.

Unless we can get some national leadership in Washington to grow the economy again, get out of the way of mining and manufacturing, and create new wealth, new resources, rather than trying to ration what we have now, we will go the way of Greece. (And Stockton)

Our Founding Fathers were made of sterner stuff and meant us for better things. Unless you want to see the misery of those people in Stockton multiplied from coast to coast, it is time for genuine change in the White House. Vote for change this November.

*I kept thinking..."A preacher, a priest, and a rabbi go into a lifeboat..."

"...Rigoberta Menchu ran as a candidate in the 2007 and 2011 presidential elections in Guatemala, although she got knocked out in the first round – Guatemalans evidently being disinclined to elect someone to the highest office in the land with no accomplishment whatsoever apart from a lousy fake memoir. Which just goes to show what a bunch of unsophisticated rubes they are."

It is already a matter of record that Mr. Obama has referred to our men and women in uniform as "photo opportunities," with the specific words "You guys make a pretty good photo op." Past presidents have doubtless praised our service members for defending the country, but it is doubtful that any president, especially one with his own service record (e.g., Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, or either Bush) ever called our troops a "photo op."

Use the comments as an open thread on any of these topics. If you feel that I’ve neglected a link, news, commentary, humor or Rule Fivage, send a link to the contact email on the sidebar. (All spambots must die!)

Friday, June 22, 2012

The next time President Obama hits the links, it will be his 100th round of golf since coming to the White House. That’s quite a milestone in just 3 1/2 years. As it takes him about six hours to drive to the greens and complete 18 holes, Mr. Obama has spent the equivalent of four months’ worth of work time golfing. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy has been stuck in a sand trap.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Martha Stewart was found guilty on four counts of obstructing justice for lying to federal investigators. She was sentenced to five months in prison.

Roger Clemons was charged with lying to Congress, facing up to 21 months in prison if convicted. He was acquitted.

Scooter Libby told the truth to Congress, but his recollections differed from another witness, so he was sentenced to a 30-month prison term, which was later commuted.

Eric Holder both lied repeatedly and presented false testimony to Congress (Mr. Holder believes there's a difference!). In addition, he refuses to turn over documents that could clarify exactly who is responsible for the Fast and Furious debacle which lead to the death of Border Patrol agent Brian A. Terry and literally hundreds of Mexican citizens.

Guess which one of these four is not or has not been under indictment for lying? Guess which one liberal Democrats are trying in vain to defend?

"...to undermine the person who is assigned to block the voter suppression in our country..."
-Nancy Pelosi

Hey, Nancy! What do you call someone who is "assigned" to do something and then doesn't do it? Note she didn't say "the person who actually has blocked voter suppression in our country", because that would mean doing things like prosecuting the New Black Panthers when they practiced voter intimidation in Philadelphia, which he didn't.

Why is it that when anyone else lies to Congress over matters as insignificant as to whether or not baseball players used performance enhancing drugs, they throw the book at them, but when someone sworn to uphold the law, who holds the highest law enforcement office in the land, lies over policies with international repercussions, that got people killed because of seeming incompetence, with indications of a cover up of that incompetence, which could reach to the highest levels of government, partisan hacks like Nancy Pelosi can't even generate a little faux attention?

No, Nancy Pelosi, running away from Holder's lies and incompetence like Barack Obama running away from his record on the economy, is left with nothing but race baiting innuendo.

Someone tell me again how this ditz got to be Speaker of the House? This Halloween, when you need to tell a scary story, tell the one how Nancy Pelosi was second only to Joe Biden in the line of succession to the Presidency. But first, warn anyone with a weak heart!

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Private George T. Sakato distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism in action on 29 October 1944, on hill 617 in the vicinity of Biffontaine, France. After his platoon had virtually destroyed two enemy defense lines, during which he personally killed five enemy soldiers and captured four, his unit was pinned down by heavy enemy fire. Disregarding the enemy fire, Private Sakato made a one-man rush that encouraged his platoon to charge and destroy the enemy strongpoint. While his platoon was reorganizing, he proved to be the inspiration of his squad in halting a counter-attack on the left flank during which his squad leader was killed. Taking charge of the squad, he continued his relentless tactics, using an enemy rifle and P-38 pistol to stop an organized enemy attack. During this entire action, he killed 12 and wounded two, personally captured four and assisted his platoon in taking 34 prisoners. By continuously ignoring enemy fire, and by his gallant courage and fighting spirit, he turned impending defeat into victory and helped his platoon complete its mission. Private Sakato’s extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit on him, his unit, and the United States Army.

There are fewer than a hundred living MoH recipients today. Their names and their stories should not be forgotten. My mission is to honor one of those heroes here each week, and salute them for their courage and sacrifice. In the words of John Fitzgerald Kennedy:

“A nation reveals itself not only by the men it produces, but also by the men it honors; the men it remembers.”

I had a nice dinner with my sister Sunday night. She'd actually been trying to ply me with food since my birthday, but this was the first chance we'd gotten to get together. She'd come across an old box of my Mom's stuff, that we'd cleaned out of her house many years before. As she was going through it, she found a number of things...an old ring that my Mom had promised to a cousin of mine, and this...my Dad's old straight razor.

You can just barely make out the price on the box $3.50

It's the "Antelope" model, made by Clauss, I'm guessing around the 1930's. The handle is Bakelite and there's plastic bonded to the tang. My Dad probably started shaving sometime in the 1920's, and while I don't think this was his first razor, I think it was probably his last straight razor, before he started using those new fangled disposable blade razors.

I don't think I ever saw him shave with it, but I was acquainted on a couple of occasions with the leather razor strop he used to keep it sharp. It was applied to my seat of education once or twice, to sharpen me into the individual I am today.

I feel as if I got a little part of my father back on Father's day. A connection. A tangible bit of something to stretch across the years from his world to mine.

I'm a Norelco man, myself. Got my first one when I was about eighteen. Made it a point to get one for each of my sons on their eighteenth birthday. After I'm gone, I don't expect any of my boys to want to keep any old electric shaver of mine. They're disposable. But one of them will probably find his grandfather's razor still holding an edge. Still almost new in the box, as when it cost three dollars and four bits.

“Just two weeks after a felon in jail got 41 percent of the democratic vote in West Virginia, President Obama got embarrassed again in Arkansas yesterday when an unknown lawyer got 42 percent. See, that proves once and for all that there’s only a 1 percent difference between a lawyer and a convicted felon.”

Monday, June 18, 2012

Of all the Big Lies told by Democrats in the last few years, not many come close to the magnitude that requiring a photo ID to vote is somehow "voter suppression". Unless you affix a single word in front of it: "Illegal". Good citizens really have no problem with the concept of suppressing illegal votes.

There is nothing in a requirement to show a valid ID at a polling place that is "racist" or substantially different than there is at a bank when you cash a check, an airport where you board a plane or entry to a federal courthouse.

In fact, to me, it is at least mildly to downright insulting, to claim that "minorities" are disproportionately less likely to have or to be able to obtain a photo ID, and therefore their votes would be "suppressed". This sounds very much like that form of colonial paternalism, that "these people" cannot fend for themselves, therefore the Great White Father must do their thinking for them. Balderdash!

And since the photo ID is the 'lingua franca" of identification, as it were, opening avenues of commerce, prosperity and success, why isn't the focus to help the disadvantaged, whatever their race, creed or color, to obtain the very document that will help to garner a measure of prosperity for themselves. How many successful people do you know who do not have at least one photo ID?

I vaguely remember back in the misty recesses of time, obtaining my first driver's license. As I recall, I needed to bring my birth certificate and possibly one or two other documents to the DMV. After that, it was always much easier to show my driver's license than to carry my birth certificate with me everywhere. When I moved to Ohio, I needed a photo ID and a Social Security card to get a driver's license. Since I couldn't find my SS card after a cross country move, I had to go down to the SS office, where they required a photo ID to get a new card. At this point I yelled "racist!" and stormed out of the office! Well, no, actually, I showed them the California DL I had gotten so many years before. Problem solved.

Was it a hassle? A minor one, yes. I had to make about three or four trips, typically during my lunch break, so that I could meet the requirements of driving legally in Ohio. I then took my newly minted Ohio driver's license and registered to vote.

At this point, I want to touch on the myth of the absolute right of a citizen to vote, because it is "Constitutionally protected", unlike driving a car, boarding a plane, etc. It is Constitutionally protected. And though some zealots say it as if "ConstitutionallyProtectedRightToVote" was all one word, it is not and it is not, by the way, absolute.

I say that, because I spent part of an afternoon last week, listening to a fellow on the radio, who was convinced that one's ConstitutionallyProtectedRightToVote was an absolute, and therefore could not be restricted in any way by any of the fifty states. After all, he argued, it was a

Federally.
Constitutionally.
Protected.
Right.

So by what right could the states restrict it in any way? In fact, he was so sure of his "logic" that he posited that the reason advocates for voter ID had not brought the matter before the Supreme Court, was that "they knew they'd lose". After all, the right is absolutely protected by the Federal Constitution, right?

Well, as he imagined it...not so much. I've got a few questions for him to ponder: Question number one: Can sixteen year old citizens vote? No. So there's your first restriction. Voting is not absolutely to every citizen without restriction. There is a legal age requirement. Strike one.

Question number two: Can convicted felons vote? Here it gets a little trickier. It is my understanding that, while in some states convicted felons lose their right to vote, other states have been more "progressive" in allowing felons to vote. So, it would appear that some states can and have placed restrictions on who can vote, not based on race, color or creed, but on their criminal activity. Still a citizen, but not a voter. Strike two.

And even more importantly, to my mind, is that you have to register to vote. Voting may be a right conferred upon you at birth, but if you do not accept your responsibility as a citizen and register, you are not eligible to vote. Period. Strike three. (You're out!)

If I were to cross the border into Nevada this November, and walk into the nearest polling place and tell them I want to vote, they would ask me my name (whether I showed them an ID or not). And when they did not find it on the rolls, they might ask me if I were registered within their district. At which point, I tell them it doesn't matter whether or not I am registered, I have a Constitutionally protected right to vote! (I would say this in a big, booming voice, so they would know I have the power of Right on my side!)

I'm taking bets - do you think the next phone call they would make would be to the looney bin or the cops? I'd say about even money.

And having moved across the country several times, I am also cognizant of time restrictions on registrations. If the state I move into has a deadline 90 days before an election, to register to vote in the next election, and I register 85 days before the election, I can't legally vote...in that election.

And in the bigger scheme of things, there may be people who through neglect or forgetfulness because of all the things involved in a move, big or small, may disenfranchise themselves..for a single election. That doesn't mean forever banned, it just means they might have to sit one out. The system relies on the responsibility of the citizens to keep themselves informed and do what is necessary, so as not to restrict their franchise.

Your California driver license or identification number, if you have one, or the last four digits of your social security number, if you have one. If you do not have any of these numbers, the state will assign you a unique identification number.

Three out of four either are, or require a photo ID to obtain. The fourth, I don't know how they verify that you are who you say your are.

Those on the Left are on the record as favoring "One man, one vote." I agree. But I would add, "One man, only one vote." The idea that a vote is so precious there should be no restrictions on casting one, rings hollow if it is not so precious as to be protected against counterfeits. As counterfeit money devalues legitimate currency, so counterfeit votes devalue legitimate ones.

In a sharply divided society, people have to be able to trust in the integrity of our electoral system, in order for them to accept being on the losing end of the popular vote. The alternatives are unacceptable.

Update : I was thinking of asking one of the liberal commenters for a list of all those "minorities" who are too incompetent to obtain a photo ID for themselves, then I remembered our friends at Moooove On did it for them. From an email Steven Biel sent me:

"...voter suppression laws passed by Republicans in battleground states to make it as hard as possible for students, poor people, African-Americans, and Latinos to vote."

Stop laughing! Yes, he said "students". I may not remember the DMV, but I remember high school, and I did not know a kid who was sixteen years old or older who wasn't doing everything in his or her power to obtain their driver's license.

Please Steven, send me a list of all the students you know who are old enough to vote, but don't have a driver's license. Note: Sheldon Cooper doesn't count because he's fictional, much like most of your objections.

“Tonight was the premiere of a new version of the TV show ‘Dallas’ with Larry Hagman. … The original “Dallas” series started in 1978. Back then, America was very different. We had an ineffective, one-term president. Gas prices were through the roof. We were in a stand-off with Iran. I’m glad those dark days are over.”

Saturday, June 16, 2012

You may be familiar with the story of the Romney Campaign bus driving around one of Obama's events, honking its horn. That was pretty lame. Now we hear that presumably, overzealous Obama supporters have hired a plane to tow a sign above Romney campaign events that says

Really? Romney is supposedly the "friend of millionaires"? As if Barack wasn't?? When Barack Obama just recently hit up fifty people at Sarah Jessica Parker's house for $40,000 a pop??? (Two million dollars, for those of you in Rio Linda) Is there anyone other than a "millionaire" or "billionaires" who could afford, in this economy, to spend forty grand to have dinner with a politician?

Barack Obama, who himself is the author of dog eating, girl shoving, composite girlfriend, semi-fictional and/or ghost written books, named after sermons he didn't listen to for twenty years, which, added to his salary as amateur golf pro wannabee, have made him a multi-millionaire, might have a hard sell portraying Mitt, with a straight face, as a fellow millionaire, and thus, to be feared.

Of course, he'll have a much easier time of that, than convincing anyone that he is a frugal, fiscally responsible president who can be trusted to rescue the economy, or to run on the record of what he's actually done and not what his "vision" is of how things should be.

For information about purchasing his completed art or commissioning new projects, contact him at

john555cox @ hotmail.com. (No spaces)

Blog rated PG-13

KiRKWOOD

The Blog Commandments

I. Commenting here is a privilege, not a right.

II. Disagreement is welcome, even encouraged, but spam, unduly profane, or offensive speech is subject to removal by the staff and management of this blog. Insults from the FBI (Foul mouthed, Boring and Ignorant) and anonymous trolls hardest hit.

III. Feel free to use, in unaltered form, any Photoshops I create with the 'Proof Positive' address on them. A simple link in return is all we ask, so anyone else who likes it knows where to find more.

IV. The artwork that John does is his own, so you should write him for permission to use it.

V. As a matter of policy, I never knowingly print lies or untruths in my blog or Tweets, unless I'm quoting correctly the liberal who told them.

Flag Counter (Since May '09)

Proof Positive Glossary:

Support Democracies Around the World

Support Our Allies Around the World

Support Our Friends Around the World

Casablanca

Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, & social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use any copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must first obtain permission from the copyright owner.